01379pab a2200181 454500008004000000100002000040245008600060260000900146300001400155362000800169520085200177650004201029650002701071650003001098650001401128700002401142773003101166180718b2010   xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d  aPaynter, Sharon  aWho watches the watchment? Evaluating judicial performance in the American states  c2010  ap.923-53.  aJan  aScholars and human resource practitioners agree that effective performance appraisal systems have clear objectives, reliable and valid appraisal methodology, separation of personal judgments from job-based performance assessments, acceptance by employees, and leadership commitment. Using data from state reports, surveys, case histories, personal interviews, and judicial performance appraisal studies, this article juxtaposes judicial performance evaluation (JPE) and the criteria for effective appraisal systems to address the question of whether judicial independence can be preserved when judges' performance is systematically evaluated by multiple raters. The authors conclude that JPE is an effective performance appraisal tool that can satisfy the need for accountability to the public while protecting judicial independence. - Reproduced.  aPerformance appraisal - united States  aCourts - United States  aJudiciary - United States  aJudiciary  aKearney, Richard C.  aAdministration and Society